We’ll be publishing detailed points you can use, like the one’s below, along with more general information about the field’s wildlife, villager wellbeing, drainage, access and social issues and simple bullet-point statements you might want to add into your objections when the time comes.
We hope to have all the material you will need available on this website by May 24th.
Site NWS31 (Our Horse-Field) compared to the other sites within the Sheffield Plan: Proposed Additional Site Allocations May 2025 (PASA) is modest in scale—yet raises disproportionately complex planning, heritage, access and ecological issues. The overall housing shortfall has been largely addressed through other sites, and removal of NWS31 would not materially compromise delivery of strategic objectives and would improve the environmental sustainability profile of the Plan overall.
Undue harm to Heritage Asset NWS31 is explicitly identified in the Heritage Impact Assessment as impacting heritage assets (PASA, Page 26). Paragraphs 202–221 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Dec 2024 (NPPF) require clear and convincing justification for any harm to heritage significance. There is no indication in the site proposal that such harm has been justified or that less harmful alternatives have been properly explored in this regard. The precautionary principle should apply, and the site removed until robust evidence is provided.
Conflict with Policy GS4 – Protection of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land NWS31 is likely to comprise Grade 3a agricultural land, which is classified as “best and most versatile” land (BMV). National planning policy emphases the importance of protecting highquality agricultural land unless there is a clear justification for development and that development should avoid BMV land unless no other suitable land is available. Given the Council has identified alternative housing land across the city, the inclusion of this site is not justified pending a detailed Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) survey, which as far as I can ascertain from the limited time available has not been performed.
Scoring on Green Belt Purpose Purpose 1: The assessment understates the site’s containment function and should be revised to at least “moderate”. Though adjacent to a village, NWS31 lies within a growth corridor where incremental release risks cumulative sprawl. Western edge lacks defensible boundaries, increasing exposure to further encroachment. Ancient woodland reinforces a natural containment role now being compromised.
Purpose 2: The site plays a precautionary spatial buffering role and should be upgraded to“moderate”. While not directly linking settlements, the site contributes to spatial separation between dispersed rural communities. Loss would undermine long-term containment and encourage ribbon development along valley routes.
Purpose 3: Given the visibility and land use of the site, it should be scored “strong” for countryside safeguarding. Site adjoins ancient woodland and open fields, forming part of a visually sensitive rural fringe. Development would be conspicuously urbanising, disrupting public footpaths and local landscape character.
Purpose 4: The site plays a contextual heritage role and should be scored at least “low”, not omitted entirely. The area contributes to the historic landscape context of Wharncliffe Side. Sheffield’s Historic Landscape Characterization recognises such features as valuable to rural historic character.
Purpose 5: NWS31’s allocation dilutes regeneration efforts and should be scored at least “moderate”. Allocating greenfield land here weakens policy leverage for brownfield redevelopment in more sustainable locations (e.g., Stocksbridge, Deepcar). Retaining NWS31 within the Green Belt supports urban-first investment.
Raising even one or two of NWS31’s Green Belt purpose scores—particularly for sprawl (Purpose 1), countryside encroachment (Purpose 3), or regeneration (Purpose 5)—would elevate the site’s overall Green Belt value from “weak” to “moderate or strong”, making it a less justifiable candidate for release. This would undermine the strategic rationale for its deallocation, particularly given the availability of better-performing alternatives.
Site Viability and Housing Density While 103 dwellings across 3.42 hectares may appear to achieve a compliant gross density of approximately 30 dph, this figure fails to reflect the extent of developable land once all ecological buffers, heritage mitigation zones, provision of green spaces and retained access paths are accounted for. The effective net density is likely to be significantly higher, contrary to the character of the area and raising potential conflict with both local and national design principles.
Furthermore if the lower end of the acceptable suburban density band 20 is used, with a reduced figure for developable land, and considering all the existing constraints the land possesses (topography, heritage, infrastructure, access, ecological, etc) this is not unreasonable, the total number of houses deliverable by this site reduces to a much lower figure. For sensitive rural edge or constrained sites like NWS31, a 40–50% reduction could be justified. This would bring the deliverable houses to 20 (houses per hectare) x 1.71 Ha (adjusted developable area) circa 34 houses and completely undermining the viability of the site and its inclusion within the plan.
There is Availability of Superior Alternative Sites within the Plan. Larger, better-connected, and less constrained sites (e.g., NES37 and SES30) have been proposed and can absorb marginal reductions elsewhere. This obviates the need to retain NWS31 within the allocation, particularly as its exclusion would improve the environmental sustainability profile of the Plan overall.
WHARNCLIFFE SIDE RESOURCES 